Pre-stimulus phase and amplitude regulation of phase-locked responses is maximized in the critical state

  1. Arthur-Ervin Avramiea
  2. Richard Hardstone
  3. Jan-Matthis Lueckmann
  4. Jan Bim
  5. Huib D Mansvelder
  6. Klaus Linkenkaer-Hansen  Is a corresponding author
  1. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands
  2. Neuroscience Institute, New York University School of Medicine, United States
  3. Technical University of Munich, Germany
  4. Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic

Abstract

Understanding why identical stimuli give differing neuronal responses and percepts is a central challenge in research on attention and consciousness. Ongoing oscillations reflect functional states that bias processing of incoming signals through amplitude and phase. It is not known, however, whether the effect of phase or amplitude on stimulus processing depends on the long-term global dynamics of the networks generating the oscillations. Here, we show, using a computational model, that the ability of networks to regulate stimulus response based on pre-stimulus activity requires near-critical dynamics—a dynamical state that emerges from networks with balanced excitation and inhibition, and that is characterized by scale-free fluctuations. We also find that networks exhibiting critical oscillations produce differing responses to the largest range of stimulus intensities. Thus, the brain may bring its dynamics close to the critical state whenever such network versatility is required.

Data availability

Source code required to run all simulations, as well as datasets and scripts required to generate all figures presented here, are available on figshare.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Arthur-Ervin Avramiea

    Integrative Neurophysiology, Center for Neurogenomics and Cognitive Research, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0826-8269
  2. Richard Hardstone

    Perception and Brain Dynamics Laboratory, Departments of Neurology, Neuroscience and Physiology, and Radiology, Neuroscience Institute, New York University School of Medicine, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7502-9145
  3. Jan-Matthis Lueckmann

    Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jan Bim

    Computer Science, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2780-5610
  5. Huib D Mansvelder

    Department of Integrative Neurophysiology, Centre for Neurogenomics and Cognitive Research, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1365-5340
  6. Klaus Linkenkaer-Hansen

    Department of Integrative Neurophysiology, Center for Neurogenomics and Cognitive Research (CNCR), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    k.linkenkaerhansen@vu.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2140-9780

Funding

Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (612.001.123)

  • Richard Hardstone
  • Klaus Linkenkaer-Hansen

Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (406.15.256)

  • Arthur-Ervin Avramiea
  • Klaus Linkenkaer-Hansen

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2020, Avramiea et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,214
    views
  • 262
    downloads
  • 22
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.53016

Further reading

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Jenny Chen, Phoebe R Richardson ... Hopi E Hoekstra
    Research Article

    Genetic variation is known to contribute to the variation of animal social behavior, but the molecular mechanisms that lead to behavioral differences are still not fully understood. Here, we investigate the cellular evolution of the hypothalamic preoptic area (POA), a brain region that plays a critical role in social behavior, across two sister species of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus and P. polionotus) with divergent social systems. These two species exhibit large differences in mating and parental care behavior across species and sex. Using single-nucleus RNA-sequencing, we build a cellular atlas of the POA for males and females of both Peromyscus species. We identify four cell types that are differentially abundant across species, two of which may account for species differences in parental care behavior based on known functions of these cell types. Our data further implicate two sex-biased cell types to be important for the evolution of sex-specific behavior. Finally, we show a remarkable reduction of sex-biased gene expression in P. polionotus, a monogamous species that also exhibits reduced sexual dimorphism in parental care behavior. Our POA atlas is a powerful resource to investigate how molecular neuronal traits may be evolving to give rise to innate differences in social behavior across animal species.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Ayni Sharif, Matthew S Jeffers ... Manoj M Lalu
    Research Article

    C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) antagonists may improve both acute stroke outcome and long-term recovery. Despite their evaluation in ongoing clinical trials, gaps remain in the evidence supporting their use. With a panel of patients with lived experiences of stroke, we performed a systematic review of animal models of stroke that administered a CCR5 antagonist and assessed infarct size or behavioural outcomes. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase were searched. Article screening and data extraction were completed in duplicate. We pooled outcomes using random effects meta-analyses. We assessed risk of bias using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool and alignment with the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) and Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) recommendations. Five studies representing 10 experiments were included. CCR5 antagonists reduced infarct volume (standard mean difference −1.02; 95% confidence interval −1.58 to −0.46) when compared to stroke-only controls. Varied timing of CCR5 administration (pre- or post-stroke induction) produced similar benefit. CCR5 antagonists significantly improved 11 of 16 behavioural outcomes reported. High risk of bias was present in all studies and critical knowledge gaps in the preclinical evidence were identified using STAIR/SRRR. CCR5 antagonists demonstrate promise; however, rigorously designed preclinical studies that better align with STAIR/SRRR recommendations and downstream clinical trials are warranted. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42023393438).